The question of ontological commitment in Plato’s Hippias Major has been important in disputes over the dialogue’s place in the corpus, its meaning, and its authenticity. But this question seems to have been settled—the Hippias Major is not committed to the ‘forms.’ Such an ontological conclusion has been vigorously defended, but its defenses rest on a problematic meta-ontological framework. This paper suggests a more adequate framework and brings more evidence to the evaluation of the question of ontological commitment in the (...) Hippias Major. It concludes that the dialogue is indeed committed to some kind of form. (shrink)

RÉSUMÉ: Cet article poursuit un double objectif: premièrement, de montrer que, dans I’Hippias majeur de Platon, Hippias défend une ontologie matérialiste, et, deuxièmement, de définir la critique de cette ontologie matérialiste. Cette démonstration repose sur l’interprétation du passage qui se trouve en 300b4-301e3. Nous présenterons d’abord les limites des interprétations qu’en font P. Woodruff et I. Ludiam, pour ensuite définir le concept de matérialisme dans le contexte de la pensée ancienne afin de dégager les traits spécifiques du matérialisme que Platon (...) prête aHippias. L’opposition entre Hippias et Socrate est enfait une opposition ontologique entre deux conceptions de l’unité : les unités corporelles élémentaires et l’«unité formelle».ABSTRACT: The aim of this article is twofold: first, to show that, in Plato’s Hippias Major, Hippias is the mouthpiece of a materialist ontology; second, to discuss the critique of this ontology. My argument is based on an interpretation of Hippias Major 300b4-301e3. I begin by revealing the shortcomings of P. Woodruff’s and I. Ludlam’s interpretations. Next, I define the concept of materialism as it was understood in ancient Greece in order to outline the specificity of Hippias’ materialism. Finally, I argue that the opposition between the two characters of the Hippias Major represents in fact an ontological opposition between two conceptions of what a unity is, i. e., Hippias’ elementary corporal unities and Socrates’ “formal unity.”. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThe aim of this article is twofold: first, to show that, in Plato'sHippias Major,Hippias is the mouthpiece of a materialist ontology; second, to discuss the critique of this ontology. My argument is based on an interpretation ofHippias Major300b4–301e3. I begin by revealing the shortcomings of P. Woodruff's and I. Ludlam's interpretations. Next, I define the concept of materialism as it was understood in ancient Greece in order to outline the specificity of Hippias' materialism. Finally, I argue that the opposition between (...) the two characters of theHippias Majorrepresents in fact an ontological opposition between two conceptions of what a unity is, i.e., Hippias' elementary corporal unities and Socrates' “formal unity.”. (shrink)

Resumen El siguiente artículo propone una interpretación del Hipias Mayor de Platón. A partir del análisis del contexto dramático, de los interlocutores y de la ejecución del diálogo, se destaca el problema de lo bello en sus implicancias ontológicas y éticas. El repetido esfuerzo por determinar lo bello no sólo responde a un problema filosófico fundamental, sino a una intención terapéutica por parte de Sócrates. El desdoblamiento de Sócrates resultará en el fondo ser un recurso por el cual sea posible (...) superar el olvido de la ignorancia que el interlocutor de Sócrates padece.The following paper proposes an interpretation of Plato’s Hippias Major. From the analysis of the dramatic context, the interlocutors and the execution of the dialogue, it highlights the problem of beauty in its ontological and ethical implications. The repeated effort to determine the beautiful not only responds to a fundamental philosophical problem, but to a therapeutic intention by Socrates. The debated splitting of Socrates will be ultimately a resource by which it is possible to overcome the oblivion of the ignorance that the interlocutor of Socrates suffers. (shrink)

In the 'Hippias Major' Socrates uses a counter-example to oppose Hippias‘s view that parts and wholes always have a "continuous" nature. Socrates argues, for example, that even-numbered groups might be made of parts with the opposite character, i.e. odd. As Gadamer has shown, Socrates often uses such examples as a model for understanding language and definitions: numbers and definitions both draw disparate elements into a sum-whole differing from the parts. In this paper I follow Gadamer‘s suggestion that we should focus (...) on the parallel between numbers and definitions in Platonic thought. However, I offer a different interpretation of the lesson implicit in Socrates‘s opposition to Hippias. I argue that, according to Socrates, parts and sum-wholes may share in essential attributes; yet this unity or continuity is neither necessary, as Hippias suggests, nor is it impossible, as Gadamer implies. In closing, I suggest that this seemingly minor difference in logical interpretation has important implications for how we should understand the structure of human communities in a Platonic context. (shrink)